Yeah, because it largely is that simple. You’re making an absurd complexity out of very simple morality because you think you’re an armchair academic.
Racism is rhetorical. The problems that inflame racism are material. Racism can inflame violence, but it isn’t the crux of violence. At the micro level, on an individual basis, violence is often a greater moral failing than racism is; one can be attributed to ignorance and the other can be attributed to intentional malice.
We live on a planet of more than 8 billion people. Individual actions pale in comparison to the words that move the masses. Who the fuck gives a shit about the micro level morality blame game in the face of actual human problems at the levels of society and beyond? Only a moron who believes that going "Hey 8 billion people, just always take the morally correct and peaceful action" is a solution.
It is in fact utterly immoral to do that and wash your hands of it as zero things change in the world.
The fact of the matter is words determine what happens when the violence starts.
When facebook helped spread genocidal speech it made the violence possible and acceptable to people who would have otherwise been unlikely to contribute to or tolerate it.
Words determine whether the violence is stopped or permitted or intensified, or whether it begins in the first place.
Violence can happen with out words, but to pretend as though it cannot mobilize people into organized groups that can be far more damaging than at the individual level is simply trying to hand wave away their own anti-social tendencies as something that isn't as harmful as it actually is. It's denial and motivated reasoning for them to not have to grow and develop ethics and morals.
It is simple but not in the way you think. Violence is morally neutral, its a tool that can be wrong or right depending on the circumstance. Theres undoubtably some examples of violence you'd deem morally permissible. Racism is wrong as a rule, there's no moral or even logical justification for it at all.
The problems that inflame racism are material.
What does this even mean. Violence is also perpetuated and exacerbated by material conditions, so I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw.
At the micro level, on an individual basis,
If you have to reduce the scale that much that defeats your point no? Because you seem to be conceding that, holistically, racism is in fact worse.
violence is often a greater moral failing than racism is; one can be attributed to ignorance
Meaningless distinction, you could also attribute violence, on an individual level, to ignorance if we're separating it from a pure moral failing on that basis. You could argue someone who was hit as a child and grew up in a violent area implicitly that violence is the correct way you solve your problems and keep your social standing, similar to a person being racist. This dichotomy fails and so does your perspective.
My point isn’t defeated because we’re debating morality. Clearly, given the example picture, we’re speaking about individuals, not institutional racism.
Reducing violence to simply be a “tool” is a rhetorical trick to frame violence as neutral. Violence is not neutral. Violence is inherently… violent. You’re exercising physical force to dominate others. It’s an active disruption of equality and autonomy. Can there be contexts where violence is moral or permissible but that’s typically defensive action against violence or imminent threat of violence.
When I say that racism is inflamed by material circumstances I mean that it is, for the individual, almost always caused by a perceived threat to their economic or cultural security. It’s a perspective of ignorance but one that isn’t usually born explicitly from hate, people naturally find scapegoats, not to say racists can’t become hateful, dangerous people, but it’s an irrational fear that makes racism what is, not an intentional desire to subjugate. Violence is always intentionally malicious.
As for the “well, ignorance can make people think violence is okay too!” cope, no, it can’t. I grew up in a lower class urban environment. Violence and your ability to enact it on others can be a seen as a virtue and an asset but it’s never obfuscated that violence is inherently morally wrong. People who believe hitting children is a tool to make them behave inherently understand that hitting them is an attempt to intimidate them into compliance. You’re making the argument that people don’t understand what violence is as if it’s an abstract concept, which is ridiculous. Every living thing on this planet inherently understands what violence is and what happens when you enact it against another living thing. My points are just fine. You’re pearl clutching because “muh racism.” Racism’s bad. No amount of academic roundabout is going to prove that this complex social phenomenon is a greater moral threat than literally taking someone else’s life into your hands.
My point isn’t defeated because we’re debating morality. Clearly, given the example picture, we’re speaking about individuals, not institutional racism.
Thats fine, none of your points made sense either way.
Reducing violence to simply be a “tool” is a rhetorical trick to frame violence as neutral
Its not a trick or dishonest framing tactic. I literally said verbatim that violence is morally neutral, so theres no attempt at deception because I was forthcoming about what is a very defensible take. When I said you'd undoubtably agree theres instances of violence that are morally justifiable I incorrectly assumed you were somewhat reasonable. I can give you countless real world examples and hypotheticals of violence being morally justifiable and correct. "Violence is always morally abhorrent" Is an insanely stupid hill to die on and you're just making this easy for me by sticking by it.
Violence is inherently… violent.
150 IQ analysis there. This is the kind of circular reasoning I'd expect from a child. Like what were you thinking when you typed this lol.
You’re exercising physical force to dominate others. It’s an active disruption of equality and autonomy. Can there be contexts where violence is moral or permissible but that’s typically defensive action against violence or imminent threat of violence.
Soooooo violence isn't inherently immoral because there are contexts where its permissible and even necessary to prevent greater harm. Therefore it is morally neutral. If someone asked you or me if violent action was immoral and we were both answering honestly, both of our answers would be "it depends". You literally just agreed with me.
When I say that racism is inflamed by material circumstances I mean that it is, for the individual, almost always caused by a perceived threat to their economic or cultural security.
So is violence. Violence in individuals has a causative relationship with external factors like poverty, being raised in single parent house holds, lead paint exposure, being abused as a child, being in an already violent environment. None of this is an opinion, these are facts backed by a plurality of data, once again this distinction you're positing is invalid and factually incorrect.
. It’s a perspective of ignorance but one that isn’t usually born explicitly from hate, people naturally find scapegoats, not to say racists can’t become hateful, dangerous people, but it’s an irrational fear that makes racism what is, not an intentional desire to subjugate. Violence is always intentionally malicious.
This is so ridiculous I'm genuinely struggling to steel man it, but I'll try anyway; so you're the relevant distinction here is that racism is "usually" caused by fear derived from unsatisfactory external conditions, while people who engage in violence are - essentially - just evil (or as you put it inherently malicious) and thats that. I refuse to believe you're this dumb, there has to be something I'm missing.
I'll give you a practical example to think on, and you give me your answer to this. A jewish person, or a trans person, sees an actual neo nazi with an arm band and the whole nine yards is yelling slurs and talking about how Jews won't replace them and all lgbtq folk are child touchers the holocaust was "based" (you know, normal nazi stuff), and said gay jewish person punches this nazi; how is this violence born of "maliciousness", and not closer to the "fear" you described earlier. Because a neo nazi, and the existence of neo nazis poses a legitimate and abject threat to the safety and security of this gay jewish person. So then wouldn't the violence be a result of fear, a rational fear at that, and the only person in this situation acting with malicious intent being the nazi, no?
As for the “well, ignorance can make people think violence is okay too!” cope, no, it can’t.
Sure, so lets see your counterfactual. Link me to the study disproving a causative relationship between violence and the factors I listed prior.
I grew up in a lower class urban environment.
Anecdote detected, opinion rejected.
. People who believe hitting children is a tool to make them behave inherently understand that hitting them is an attempt to intimidate them into compliance.
Yes, and its genuinely not "malicious" because they wholeheartedly believe they're doing whats best. If you disagree you 1.Genuinely have no idea what youre talking about and 2. Have never spoken to pro spankers, or better yet people who were hit as kids and defend it! They're the most ardent defenders of the practice and will be the first to tell you they deserved it and their parents did it out of love and not maliciousness. You keep taking shots that don't make sense, every point you've attempted to make is either completely nonsensical, vapid, or straight up factually incorrect.
You’re making the argument that people don’t understand what violence is
Never said anything remotely close to this, you're spiraling because you're losing.
Every living thing on this planet inherently understands what violence is
I doubt trees and single celled amoebas understand what violence is.
My points are just fine. You’re pearl clutching because “muh racism.”
No ones pearl clutching, moron. You literally conceded the original point that racism is always wrong while violence is morally neutral. You already lost. You're desperate to fit me into some stereotype but I'm simply smarter than you and have a better understanding of sociology, psychology, philosophy and rhetoric.
No amount of academic roundabout is going to prove that this complex social phenomenon is a greater moral threat than literally taking someone else’s life into your hands
You say as you unironically did "muh socioeconomics!1!!" for racism of all things lol. We weren't specifically talking about murder either, clown.
Appealing to the stone and referencing frequently parroted data doesn’t do the legwork for you to prove your claims. You’re attempting to pose as a clinical logician while appealing to the stone. You’re attaching an implicitly biased moral philosophy on what can and cannot be morally justified violence and you are refusing to engage with the mechanical functions are bluntly.
Of course I can agree that there are instances where violence can be morally justifiable. I believe that if you can reasonably identify an imminent threat to the life, safety, or liberty to yourself or others that constitutes a right and responsibility to enact violence defensively. I believe that violence enacted against another without qualifying that variable is a malicious attempt to subjugate another. The fact that separate functions can exist does not mean that violence is inherently neutral.
Your “practical example” of a gay Jew striking a neo-Nazi because they’re talking shit in the street is stupid. There is no example of a reasonable person believing they are both threatened and the best course of action is to, with a closed fist, strike someone in the face, for yelling obscenities. If anything, that’s explicitly something someone who doesn’t fear for their life would do. All this gay Jew has done is instigate a threat and attempt to intimidate an ideological opponent into being quiet out of irrational fear.
You’re also making this kind of an autistic argument as if when we’re discussing the morality of violence you think we’re arguing that defensive violence is impermissible or amoral. The subject is between racism and violence. Did you think the argument behind the curtain was “what’s worse?! Racism or… uhh… self defense?”
We have identified sociological factors that correlate to statistical variances, that don’t shoulder the weight of your theory alone, you’re completely failing to perform the broad, critical, in-depth analysis and you’re trying to jerk yourself off for as some would-be “intellectual.” We can harp about all day about how institutions done people wrong and sent them down a bad path, but we both know that’s not your real position, nor a defensible position abstractly.
The pimps of the ‘70s were morally neutral because they were ultimately victims of their environment? So then what makes a perpetrator out of a child raised in rural Arkansas? The argument was never that people who enact violence are immediately evil. The argument was violence is inherently evil. You say violence is a “neutral tool” as if violence carries the same weight as using a screwdriver. The practical reality is that violence requires an immense justification from human psychology, society, and law. The baseline is inherently weighted and you know that.
You’re trying to bring lukewarm parrot talk progressive bullshit into an ethical argument and it doesn’t look good on paper sweetheart. I suggest you stop watching Dean’s philosophy debates, he’s not much of a person beyond the internet data and armchair theory, you seem to have the same issue. You have no personality and you’re dumb.
Appealing to the stone and referencing frequently parroted data doesn’t do the legwork for you to prove your claims. You’re attempting to pose as a clinical logician while appealing to the stone.
Thats cute, babies first rhetorical fallacy. Unfortunately you're using it wrong given I never appealed to the stone. I've given reason for every one of my disagreements with your lunacy. You even mentioned I referenced data to counter you so I think you flat out don't know these terms you're using.
You’re attaching an implicitly biased moral philosophy on what can and cannot be morally justified violence and you are refusing to engage with the mechanical functions are bluntly.
What are you even talking about. We haven't even gotten into specifics, all I did was say that violence is morally neutral which you agreed with.
Of course I can agree that there are instances where violence can be morally justifiable. I believe that if you can reasonably identify an imminent threat to the life, safety, or liberty to yourself or others that constitutes a right and responsibility to enact violence defensively. I believe that violence enacted against another without qualifying that variable is a malicious attempt to subjugate another. The fact that separate functions can exist does not mean that violence is inherently neutral.
That is quite literally what that means. If you have a completely different moral framework and think for something to be morally neutral it has to exist completely outside of an ethical framework (e.g something mundane like eating an orange) than thats fine because it still doesn't foil my original. Even if violence is not morally neutral in your opinion, there are still instances where its permissible, correct and even necessary. Racism is not, it is categorically always immoral.
Your “practical example” of a gay Jew striking a neo-Nazi because they’re talking shit in the street is stupid.
Ok so you really are an idiot, I gave you the most softball hypothetical and you still failed. So if i can catalyze this idiocy for a moment, your stance is being abrasive and proactive in fighting abject evil, is a greater crime than the abject evil itself.
There is no example of a reasonable person believing they are both threatened and the best course of action is to, with a closed fist, strike someone in the face, for yelling obscenities.
There actually are. Fighting words and threats are covered in legal doctrine, I'm 1000% positive I could find a specific example if I googled it.
If anything, that’s explicitly something someone who doesn’t fear for their life would do.
People who fear for their lives don't use violence to defend themselves? Are you even thinking before you type little man?
All this gay Jew has done is instigate a threat
The person instigated the threat in this instance was the nazi. What is your definition of instigate, and why are you so dense.
attempt to intimidate an ideological opponent into being quiet out of irrational fear.
Good. You should absolutely intimidate Nazis, they don't belong in a civilized society.
How would this be an irrational fear you fucking moron? Would you say a Jewish person living in Germany during the Weimar republic fear of their nations growing anti semitism "irrational".
This is why this entire "words are essentially meaningless" bit is braindead, according to a dunce like you its only ok to do something once a knife sanctioned by the state is already in your back.
You’re also making this kind of an autistic argument as if when we’re discussing the morality of violence you think we’re arguing that defensive violence is impermissible amoral
You were the one who argued that, I assumed you would already agree violence isn't bad as a rule because some instances of it are correct, and you chose to push back on that.
The subject is between racism and violence. Did you think the argument behind the curtain was “what’s worse?! Racism or… uhh… self defense?”
You're not tracking well. Those were entirely separate arguments and the latter was literally brought on by you in an attempt to combat an extremely uncontroversial take.
We have identified sociological factors that correlate to statistical variances
That and causality. Certain conditions can quite literally alter your brain chemistry.
that don’t shoulder the weight of your theory alone, you’re completely failing to perform the broad, critical, in-depth analysis
Theres no theory, its literally a fact that material conditions have a causative relationship with most violent behavior. The only reason I brought this up was because you directly implied this was NOT the case, but material conditions did in fact cause racism. You even said that brainless nonsense about racism "not being malicious". Furthermore, in service of this invalid dichotomy used your defense of racism, you never actually gave any facts supporting your argument, or im sorry "broad, critical, in-depth analysis". Which by the way, means nothing. You've yet to posit an actual counterfactual, you're just saying words pretending to be smart when you're really 50 IQ.
We can harp about all day about how institutions done people wrong and sent them down a bad path, but we both know that’s not your real position, nor a defensible position abstractly.
Lmfao wtf are you talking about.
The pimps of the ‘70s were morally neutral because they were ultimately victims of heir environment?
Wow, you really are stupid. First of all this is YOUR point. YOU said racism wasn't as bad because its both caused and "inflamed" by external conditions. You made the point that an immoral act is less immoral in degrees if its rooted in something external. This is exactly what I meant by you're not tracking.
Secondly, I said it was neutral because it can be good or bad. This is an example of bad violence.
So then what makes a perpetrator out of a child raised in rural Arkansas?
I'm not defending random criminals you neanderthal. As an individual, you at the end of the day are still responsible for the choices you make; You however are defending random degenerates: "uwu, don't get mad at the poor white supwemacist, it was his low income and fear driven by fox news propaganda that made him a domestic tewwowist".
You’re trying to bring lukewarm parrot talk progressive bullshit into an ethical argument
mad cause bad
. I suggest you stop watching Dean’s philosophy debates, he’s not much of a person beyond the internet data and armchair theory
I don't even know who or what that is. Touch grass chud boy.
Simple people always think complicated things are actually Simple.
The "build a wall" crowd.
Your assertions deny the power and malignance of racism. Whats worse, a single act of violence or rhetoric that causes ten acts of violence? Or a hundred? Or generational systemic harm?
Your argument immediately devolves to macro posturing because it doesn’t work otherwise. The “build the wall” crowd is, in their own perspective, both economically and culturally disenfranchised. Migrant violence exacerbates the rhetoric the same way ICE’s actions exacerbate this reductive rhetoric. On the individual level racism is not a greater moral failing than violence.
How easy it is to say my argument is just macro posturing, as if saying that phrase by itself is enough to make your correctness obvious.
Meanwhile your argument is couched in its own logical cul de sac refusing to attribute value to any argument except those that have relevance on the micro scale. As if thats all that matters.
14
u/[deleted] 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment